> The world is precariously close to returning to "might makes right".
This paradigm never left us, you (and I) are just on the team with the most might at the moment.
> We can't appease by accepting a surrender.
Again, on what basis? Because you say? The term appeasement was popularized before the existence of the existential nuclear threat, and it is not a certainty that diplomacy will lead to the same outcome as starting a hot war between nuclear powers.
We might be doomed, certainly. But we might not be, and the option currently pursued by NATO (aside from some incendiary slip of the tongue about regime change in Russia) is, thankfully, to not pursue direct conflict with Russia for this reason.
>This paradigm never left us, you (and I) are just on the team with the most might at the moment.
It is contrary to the international legal system. And it's thoroughly argued against by Socrates versus Thracymachus.
>Again, on what basis?
On the basis of UN Charter article 2(4) and (5). Surrender means (4) is set aside if in fact you can start a war of aggression and come out ahead. That is completely untenable in the international institutions that exist right now. And willingly setting aside (4) means (5) has also been set aside. The Charter isn't some aspirational document, it is a treaty countries are legal parties to insofar as their sovereignty was used to acknowledge its truth and their agreement to be bound to it.
141 countries agreed to UN General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1. Russia must withdraw from all of Ukraine. It is in the interest of most countries to agree to this resolution, because it is one of the easiest calls to make since the UN was founded, and why it was founded.
If the UN unravels... humanity has no institutional means of stopping another world war.
> It is contrary to the international legal system
> On the basis of UN Charter article 2(4) and (5) [...] Russia must withdraw from all of Ukraine
> If the UN unravels...
The US and Russia routinely violate international law. The UN is not capable of enforcing these laws against actors like the US and Russia. We may not like it, but might continues to make right.
This paradigm never left us, you (and I) are just on the team with the most might at the moment.
> We can't appease by accepting a surrender.
Again, on what basis? Because you say? The term appeasement was popularized before the existence of the existential nuclear threat, and it is not a certainty that diplomacy will lead to the same outcome as starting a hot war between nuclear powers.
We might be doomed, certainly. But we might not be, and the option currently pursued by NATO (aside from some incendiary slip of the tongue about regime change in Russia) is, thankfully, to not pursue direct conflict with Russia for this reason.